The effectiveness of a "War" on terror

[Lief Erikson]

Ah .


Our country is too overall pro-Israel to act in an even-handed way. On the Democrat side, there is a very powerful Jewish lobby, and on the Republican side, there is a strong conservative Christian pro-Israel position. It comes from both sides of the Congress and from the Administration, and the general public in our country as well.

To me, as I'm an evangelical Christian too and love much of what our conservatives stand for, it's tragic that we're taking a one-sided, black and white view on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis and the War on Terror in general. That perspective is blinding us and making matters worse in the Middle East as a whole. It's painful to me on a personal level.

I think that the policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists is probably dated. The kind of terrorism that we're now fighting is different from the smaller scale terror groups and tactics that we opposed when we said that we wouldn't negotiate with them. When they were just small groups hoping to push us around on various issues, we could afford to squash those hopes by saying that we wouldn't deal with them. That would protect our civilians more generally, by making it less likely that terrorists would take them hostage.

Now, however, Islamic extremism is widespread and growing very rapidly. It is a deadly menace and a widespread one. Because extremists do not have the technology to fight for a cause in hand-to-hand battles as much nowadays, they resort to terror methods, shadow warfare. So you can have big movements that have clear-cut goals but are not extremely unified and are split up over many places, geographically. They are many movements and groups, sometimes unified by a specific nation or group, but often split up, but all driven by very similar ideologies. Those ideologies are the various forms of modern Islamic extremism.

So we are fighting a war against Islamic extremism, in my view, and some affiliated leftist groups. They have common goals and ideologies. They are a new kind of army, a new kind of invader and major threat. They aren't small-time. Assuming that they're small-time and underestimating the threat they pose is one of the major mistakes the left is making on this issue. Eventually, I'm convinced that there is a very grave risk Islamic extremists will get their hands on WMDs and will use them. The left's refusal to acknowledge and adequately respond to severe threats like Iraq, Iran and North Korea is their major mistake that, if the Democrats win the presidency, will probably have horrendous long-term consequences for the West. Islamic extremists also may continue to take over governments and countries, as they did in Somalia, as the appeal of their ideology expands. Their movement is expanding rapidly, but the left doesn't recognize the threat and refuses to take necessary and appropriate responses to it.

But our country's current refusal to respond to terrorists as people rather than as orcs is undermining our ability to deal with the threat they pose. Defining them as terrorists now is not going to stop them, or encourage them to stop taking hostages. They'll keep killing and capturing our people just because of their ideology, because to them, they're fighting a war against us. So the old ideas of refusing to communicate with them to keep them from having incentive to take hostages is not going to work at all. It's a poor reason, in the modern context.

So we should no longer classify people as terrorists. It's an old-fashioned label that had uses in the past, but now our response to terrorists needs to be changed, because Islamic terrorism is different and refusing to negotiate with them isn't going to stem long-term violence at all. In fact, it may just worsen it, because refusing to negotiate with them might keep us from taking valuable opportunities to establish cease-fires or peace treaties, stem violence and take away the motives that expand Islamic extremism's appeal.

[hectorberlioz]

Lief, I would say you are right: we're too Pro-Israel to act even-handed over there, but there are other countries besides us that work on this issue which could be moderators. But I think it's inaccurate to say that we (and I know you're being general, which is fine) view so black and white as to make us blind.

Originally Posted by Lief

So we should no longer classify people as terrorists. It's an old-fashioned label that had uses in the past, but now our response to terrorists needs to be changed, because Islamic terrorism is different and refusing to negotiate with them isn't going to stem long-term violence at all. In fact, it may just worsen it, because refusing to negotiate with them might keep us from taking valuable opportunities to establish cease-fires or peace treaties, stem violence and take away the motives that expand Islamic extremism's appeal.

And you are absolutely wrong about ditching the Terrorist label. I'm sorry you changed your mind, but that is a bunch of baloney.

Islamic Terrorism IS different, because the people, culture, and tactics are different. But it is NOT different so far as to say that it isn't terrorism, and it really doesn't deserve to be classified as anything else. Maybe the murderers who were extra-nice should be called "Social Psychos"?

As for negotiating with terrorists, I'm not really sure that could be done, at least not with someone like Bin Laden. The only "negotiables" IMO, are the insurgents in Iraq, who might just be doing it for money (ironically).

You have to remember Lief, we could have negotiated with a lot of people in the past, and it has been tried. I'm not saying negotiations are hopeless or worthless on the whole, but I very much doubt we can do anything at this point.

The thing about negotiations is this: the people we negotiate with of course aren't going to act like they don't like us, I'm sure they'll strike some chord of bonhomie, like Yasser Arafat did with us in the 90s, but underneath they'll be the same jerks, and to add to the mix, we'll be backstabbed.

Terrorists don't ask if they can blow your building up.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Islamic Terrorism IS different, because the people, culture, and tactics are different. But it is NOT different so far as to say that it isn't terrorism, and it really doesn't deserve to be classified as anything else. Maybe the murderers who were extra-nice should be called "Social Psychos"?

I agree with you that murdering civilians to achieve political objectives falls under the definition of terrorism. The Islamic extremists do fit into that category. So did the US revolutionaries in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, of course. We tarred and feathered a number of people, and ran them up rails and such. We have our share of terrorism in our history as well, and I think that it too was evil, just as Islamic terrorism is.

I agree with you that Islamic terrorism is terrorism. But I don't think that the category is useful, though when applied to them. It doesn't help anything or serve any function except perhaps to boost our own self-estetem a bit. The negative affects of keeping it are much bigger.

You aren't allowed to negotiate with a terrorist. But the reason for not negotiating with terrorists doesn't apply to Islamic terrorists, for they'll keep killing or kidnapping your people even if you don't negotiate with them. So a non-negotiation policy is old-fashioned and useless.

The term basically blacklists anyone who it refers to as evil. But Islamic extremists are not all evil. Let me give you an example from Hezbollah's conduct.

During the war between Israel and Lebanon, a million of the cluster bombs Israel dropped on Lebanon didn't explode. They just lay all over the countryside and in cities and farms, unexploded. They did not hit their Hezbollah targets at all, and were just a vengeful, vindictive attempt on Israel's part to damage the country as much as possible.

After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the bombs did kill Hezbollah fighters. So you could argue that they were a sound military strategy. How did they kill those Hezbollah fighters? The Hezbollah fighters came out and put themselves in harm's way on behalf of the citizens of the country. They risked their lives to do what they could to deactivate the cluster bombs. Several of them died because of their own choice, they yielded their lives for the protection of innocent civilians.

What is it Jesus said? There is no greater love than giving up one's life for one's friends.

What those fighters did in giving up their lives to deactivate those cluster bombs in civilian city blocks was brave, and it was also noble. It was noble, and those who died in that way deserve to be remembered with honor.

I'm not saying that Islamic terrorism isn't evil. I think it is. There are real reasons why they do what they do, however, and some of it is our country's responsibility and the responsibility of the West in general. The Republican Party does tend to paint us as the good guys and them as the bad guys. Anyone who falls under the term terrorist is automatically evil and there is nothing between them and us but kill or be killed. But nowadays, classifying our enemies as terrorists won't achieve anything. The Islamic extremist movement is very broad, with many wings in many countries. It is a hydra with many heads, and when one is chopped off, two grow up in its place. We have seen that when we have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen Islamic extremism multiply as a consequence. Not that those attacks were wrong or unjustified, but I don't think there are any good options for the West right now, except perhaps changing our policies in the Israeli/Palestinian Crisis.

My main point is that Islamic extremism is a very widespread and spreading belief system, an ideology that must be countered. It is too big to fall under the ordinary category of terrorism, for that category won't serve us in defeating them.

When a state massacres civilians, that is not called terrorism. It is the same kind of crime, but it doesn't go by the same name. Terrorism tends to be when a small group or a few small groups kidnap or murder civilians in order to achieve political aims. However, we're not fighting a small group or small groups, so the term "terrorism" doesn't seem to apply. Neither are we fighting a state. We're fighting an ideology that is diversified amongst a large number of groups that span almost the entire world, existing and striving to achieve the goals of their ideology everywhere. So I think that because this is a different kind of enemy than we have previously fought, which takes the techniques of terror while not in its own organization or ideology behaving in ways that make the "terrorist" label useful or practical, some other name and some other way of coping with them needs to be developed.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

As for negotiating with terrorists, I'm not really sure that could be done, at least not with someone like Bin Laden. The only "negotiables" IMO, are the insurgents in Iraq, who might just be doing it for money (ironically).

You have to remember Lief, we could have negotiated with a lot of people in the past, and it has been tried. I'm not saying negotiations are hopeless or worthless on the whole, but I very much doubt we can do anything at this point.

The thing about negotiations is this: the people we negotiate with of course aren't going to act like they don't like us, I'm sure they'll strike some chord of bonhomie, like Yasser Arafat did with us in the 90s, but underneath they'll be the same jerks, and to add to the mix, we'll be backstabbed.

Terrorists don't ask if they can blow your building up.

I don't think I believe you. Hamas did have a truce with Israel that it held to for a number of months. Mahmoud Abbas succeeded in getting a truce that all the militant groups in the Palestinian territories held to, for a long time.

While the Camp David peace accords were going on, from what I've heard, terrorist attacks against Israel went down to practically zero for a substantial period of time.

We have had militant groups in Iraq make offers of peace and requests for negotiations.

I agree with you that Al'Qaeda isn't all that likely to make a peace treaty, but who knows? They have occasionally made overtures that we've ignored. Their overtures of peace have always been pretty absurd, of course, things like: "Pull out of Afghanistan and we'll make a treaty with you." But they might change their tune if we do them enough damage.

It's tough to predict what will or won't happen, and I'd leave it to the experts to decide whether a group we're considering making peace with can be trusted to keep its word, and the experts would take the reliability or unreliability into account when thinking about making an agreement.

I just don't think we should shut down these options for all Islamic terrorists. There are too many of them, and their way of thinking and fighting is too different.

[Nurvingiel]

That was an AWESOME post!

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You aren't allowed to negotiate with a terrorist. But the reason for not negotiating with terrorists doesn't apply to Islamic terrorists, for they'll keep killing or kidnapping your people even if you don't negotiate with them. So a non-negotiation policy is old-fashioned and useless....

...The Islamic extremist movement is very broad, with many wings in many countries. It is a hydra with many heads, and when one is chopped off, two grow up in its place. We have seen that when we have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen Islamic extremism multiply as a consequence. Not that those attacks were wrong or unjustified, but I don't think there are any good options for the West right now, except perhaps changing our policies in the Israeli/Palestinian Crisis.

...My main point is that Islamic extremism is a very widespread and spreading belief system, an ideology that must be countered. It is too big to fall under the ordinary category of terrorism, for that category won't serve us in defeating them.

...We're fighting an ideology that is diversified amongst a large number of groups that span almost the entire world, existing and striving to achieve the goals of their ideology everywhere. So I think that because this is a different kind of enemy than we have previously fought, which takes the techniques of terror while not in its own organization or ideology behaving in ways that make the "terrorist" label useful or practical, some other name and some other way of coping with them needs to be developed.

You think that anyone in islam has terrorism as an idealogy? You are seriously brain washed. You don't even see them as people, no matter what you say.

The CIA trained "Al-Qaeda", and Saddam ok, the us government did; gave them all the weapons, including the gas used against "his own people." So how is this their idealogy, when all the wars and so called terrorist actions are a direct result of the US and british envolvement.

Not one thing you have said makes any sense. The only people in this world that has war and terrorism as an idealogy is Bush and his backers ok, and that's what they are continually trying to export all over the world, weither it be Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan. None of those countries or the islamic religeon cultivated terrorism ok, none but obviously as with any group of people, peopel are going to fight back and that is what is happening today in Iraq.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you that murdering civilians to achieve political objectives falls under the definition of terrorism. The Islamic extremists do fit into that category. So did the US revolutionaries in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, of course. We tarred and feathered a number of people, and ran them up rails and such. We have our share of terrorism in our history as well, and I think that it too was evil, just as Islamic terrorism is.

We should note our past's violence, but I am certainly not feeling guilty about it.

I agree with you that Islamic terrorism is terrorism. But I don't think that the category is useful, though when applied to them. It doesn't help anything or serve any function except perhaps to boost our own self-estetem a bit. The negative affects of keeping it are much bigger.

You aren't allowed to negotiate with a terrorist. But the reason for not negotiating with terrorists doesn't apply to Islamic terrorists, for they'll keep killing or kidnapping your people even if you don't negotiate with them. So a non-negotiation policy is old-fashioned and useless.

So they will keep kidnapping even if we do or don't have a negotiation policy, so it works both ways, why have a negotiation policy?

The term basically blacklists anyone who it refers to as evil. But Islamic extremists are not all evil. Let me give you an example from Hezbollah's conduct.

During the war between Israel and Lebanon, a million of the cluster bombs Israel dropped on Lebanon didn't explode. They just lay all over the countryside and in cities and farms, unexploded. They did not hit their Hezbollah targets at all, and were just a vengeful, vindictive attempt on Israel's part to damage the country as much as possible.

After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the bombs did kill Hezbollah fighters. So you could argue that they were a sound military strategy. How did they kill those Hezbollah fighters? The Hezbollah fighters came out and put themselves in harm's way on behalf of the citizens of the country. They risked their lives to do what they could to deactivate the cluster bombs. Several of them died because of their own choice, they yielded their lives for the protection of innocent civilians.

What is it Jesus said? There is no greater love than giving up one's life for one's friends.

What those fighters did in giving up their lives to deactivate those cluster bombs in civilian city blocks was brave, and it was also noble. It was noble, and those who died in that way deserve to be remembered with honor.

That was a great sacrifice yes, by those individual soldiers. Quite a different stroke though from the Apartments strategy they used to lure Israel's rockets to where civilians lived, and make it look like Israel was just mindless.

I'm not saying that Islamic terrorism isn't evil. I think it is. There are real reasons why they do what they do, however, and some of it is our country's responsibility and the responsibility of the West in general. The Republican Party does tend to paint us as the good guys and them as the bad guys. Anyone who falls under the term terrorist is automatically evil and there is nothing between them and us but kill or be killed.

There ARE real reasons they want to do what they do, of course!!! It's not a bad thing to defend your country fighting for it, even if your government is the most wicked on earth.
And the Republican Party of course paints it a certain way. If you wanted to defeat Hulk in a fight, are you going to win by identifying him by mushy psychological terms?

It's a sad thing that so many otherwise good Muslims have to turn to terrorism, but that does not excuse them, IMO...and when we're finished defeating them (not by destroying the ideal, which can't happen), we can all dwell on how sad the human condition is.

But nowadays, classifying our enemies as terrorists won't achieve anything.

It's not meant to "achieve" anything, as in somehow cripple them. It is a term to identify the KIND OF enemy we have. It's really pretty simple.

The Islamic extremist movement is very broad, with many wings in many countries. It is a hydra with many heads, and when one is chopped off, two grow up in its place. We have seen that when we have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen Islamic extremism multiply as a consequence. Not that those attacks were wrong or unjustified, but I don't think there are any good options for the West right now, except perhaps changing our policies in the Israeli/Palestinian Crisis.

That's because you've compromised the "fight" option.

My main point is that Islamic extremism is a very widespread and spreading belief system, an ideology that must be countered. It is too big to fall under the ordinary category of terrorism, for that category won't serve us in defeating them.

Thats why there's also the title Islamo-Fascism. I don't know the exact definition of Fascism, but it gives some association with Hitler, and since these wars are very ideological, as Hitler was, the term fits well enough.

When a state massacres civilians, that is not called terrorism. It is the same kind of crime, but it doesn't go by the same name. Terrorism tends to be when a small group or a few small groups kidnap or murder civilians in order to achieve political aims. However, we're not fighting a small group or small groups, so the term "terrorism" doesn't seem to apply. Neither are we fighting a state.

I really don't care how specific or non-specific the term terrorist is. Wars weren't won by terminology.
Besides, I think it's pretty obvious to everyone, even if they do still say 'terrorist', that the problem is widespread.

We're fighting an ideology that is diversified amongst a large number of groups that span almost the entire world, existing and striving to achieve the goals of their ideology everywhere. So I think that because this is a different kind of enemy than we have previously fought, which takes the techniques of terror while not in its own organization or ideology behaving in ways that make the "terrorist" label useful or practical, some other name and some other way of coping with them needs to be developed.

I don't think I believe you. Hamas did have a truce with Israel that it held to for a number of months. Mahmoud Abbas succeeded in getting a truce that all the militant groups in the Palestinian territories held to, for a long time.

There have been plenty of truces alright. But it really doesn't matter if the people still hate each other. Negotiations can be really fancy and official.

While the Camp David peace accords were going on, from what I've heard, terrorist attacks against Israel went down to practically zero for a substantial period of time.

We have had militant groups in Iraq make offers of peace and requests for negotiations.

A sign either that they are being defeated and bluffing that they can "afford to" make deals with us, or...?

I agree with you that Al'Qaeda isn't all that likely to make a peace treaty, but who knows? They have occasionally made overtures that we've ignored. Their overtures of peace have always been pretty absurd, of course, things like: "Pull out of Afghanistan and we'll make a treaty with you." But they might change their tune if we do them enough damage.

So you agree that some negotiations have to be a little more forceful

But here's the quagmire we face with negotiations with terrorist groups, or whatever you want to tag them: if we go, it's because we don't expect them to do anymore harm. So if we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, will Al-Qaeda suddenly bloom into a hippy caravan? I doubt it. And I also doubt that they will stop their reacreative activities. So we DON'T WANT Al-Qaeda to exist.
So if we did accept the overtures from Al-Qaeda, we might just kill them and backstab.
We're actually being pretty honest by refusing them.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm glad you liked the post, Nurvi .

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

You think that anyone in islam has terrorism as an idealogy? You are seriously brain washed. You don't even see them as people, no matter what you say.

I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The CIA trained "Al-Qaeda",

Actually, no we didn't. We gave money to Pakistan, and asked Pakistan to use it well on our behalf in funding groups in Afghanistan that would fight the USSR. We did that because we were fighting the Cold War against the USSR, and Pakistan had far better intelligence than us and better knowledge as to which groups would be the best fighters against the USSR.

Pakistan, having an extremist ideology itself to a large extent, gave our money to groups that had the same orientation. And that included Al'Qaeda. There was no direct funding or training from the CIA to Al'Qaeda. There was accidental and indirect funding that went through Pakistan, and there wasn't any training.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

and Saddam ok,

Would it have been a good thing for the world, for us to have let Iran, with its extremist ideology, conquer Iraq and take possession of all its oil reserves? There was some good reason for what we did, there.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

the us government did; gave them all the weapons, including the gas used against "his own people."

Yes, I'm aware of this. When we trained his chemical weapons officers, it was during the Vietnam era when chemical weapons were considered ethical.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

So how is this their idealogy, when all the wars and so called terrorist actions are a direct result of the US and british envolvement.

I realize that much of the hatred against us is our own fault. You are oversimplifying, though. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict was not the fault of the US or Britain, and neither has been the conflict in Darfur or the fighting in Somalia, or the fighting in the Philippines, or the fighting Islamic extremism in India, or the fighting Islamic extremism in Chechnya . . . I could go on and on.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Not one thing you have said makes any sense. The only people in this world that has war and terrorism as an idealogy is Bush and his backers ok, and that's what they are continually trying to export all over the world, weither it be Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan.

US involvement in Somalia has been minimal, though of course we'll fund the force that is fighting against our enemies. And the UIC has been harboring Al'Qaeda terrorists, according to our government.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

None of those countries or the islamic religeon cultivated terrorism ok, none but obviously as with any group of people, peopel are going to fight back and that is what is happening today in Iraq.

I did not say that the Islamic religion is the source of all the violence, but I disagree with you that "none of those countries" cultivated terrorism. Iran cultivated terrorism and that resulted in our poor relations with that country. Have you forgotten the kidnapping in our embassy, which occurred before the war between Iran and Saddam, and Iran's Islamic Revolution, headed by Khomeini?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The CIA trained "Al-Qaeda", and Saddam ok, the us government did; gave them all the weapons, including the gas used against "his own people." So how is this their idealogy, when all the wars and so called terrorist actions are a direct result of the US and british envolvement.

I certainly don't take it lightly that we did those things Tel, putting Saddam in power. But we don't have to slink and slop and kiss anyone's butt because of it. Bush was not responsible for Saddam Hussein's wickedness, the Americans alive today are not responsible for what he did.
It's a horrid part of our history in the middle-east, but I would hesitate to say that Saddam killed 3 million of his own people because we made him do it. Are we responsible, yes. We can't shrug all the blame off.
But it does not mean that are an evil or wicked nation.

Not one thing you have said makes any sense. The only people in this world that has war and terrorism as an idealogy is Bush and his backers ok, and that's what they are continually trying to export all over the world, weither it be Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan. None of those countries or the islamic religeon cultivated terrorism ok, none but obviously as with any group of people, peopel are going to fight back and that is what is happening today in Iraq.

We're exporting violence to Somalia?

Tel, with it's ups and downs, it's right to say that overall, Islam is not a bad religion. Sufis are very peaceful.
But not all brands of Islam are peaceful, and Muslims have had a history of barbarism and cruelty. Everyone else does too, in some shape or form.

Nobody is trying to eliminate Islam the Peaceful religion, but you cannot get past the violent parts of it, same as we can't forget the Inquisition's cruelty.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We should note our past's violence, but I am certainly not feeling guilty about it.

Did I say you should? I'm just trying to blur further the "us against them" perspective. Even some Revolutionaries committed terrorism. Should our cause, then, have been blacklisted as a terrorist organization?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So they will keep kidnapping even if we do or don't have a negotiation policy, so it works both ways, why have a negotiation policy?

I don't think all of them will necessarily keep kidnapping if we have a negotiation policy and use it intelligently. But they will if we don't. That's why non-negotiation is pointless.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That was a great sacrifice yes, by those individual soldiers. Quite a different stroke though from the Apartments strategy they used to lure Israel's rockets to where civilians lived, and make it look like Israel was just mindless.

I've heard the Israelis say that Hezbollah was doing that, but I have some trouble believing it. It's inconsistent with Hezbollah's actions in the field. I heard that rather than just hiding and evading Israel, many times, their fighters actually came out to attack Israeli troop lines. Also, you're right that this would be inconsistent with going out to defuse those cluster bombs. On the other hand, killing civilians just vengefully would not be inconsistent with Israel's record. Israel is known to have dropped a million cluster bombs all over the countryside, which are still killing civilians as we speak. Those bombs would have had no effect at taking out military targets, if Hezbollah fighters hadn't intentionally gotten in their way to defuse them. So intentionally killing civilians does look like it was Israel's regular policy, while luring Israeli fighters into civilian compounds doesn't make sense, considering Hezbollah's record.

So I hope you can see why I have some trouble believing those Israeli accounts. They don't match either Israel's record in that war or Hezbollah's.

Even if they are true, though, I hope that I have made my point that certainly not all of those we classify as "terrorists," and hence as evil, are actually evil.

Another problem with the term is that now, governments can declare whatever dissidents they're fighting to be "terrorists," and so virtually any insurgent group comes under that name. It's a way in modern times of just painting oneself as the good guy and the enemy as evil, which all governments are eager to do, as it makes it more likely they'll get aid in their endeavors from the US or other countries, and it also may potentially justify brutal tactics against the opposition. I think that Israel has made ample use of this.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There ARE real reasons they want to do what they do, of course!!! It's not a bad thing to defend your country fighting for it, even if your government is the most wicked on earth.
And the Republican Party of course paints it a certain way. If you wanted to defeat Hulk in a fight, are you going to win by identifying him by mushy psychological terms?

It probably isn't just the Republican Party. I bet that Democratic Party leaders will do the same.

I'm not saying we're doing wrong in fighting to defend our country. I have not said we should pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan either. Neither am I saying that combat is altogether not a solution. I think that it may well be a better alternative to letting WMDs be produced in Iraq or Iran. But hit them militarily, and you'll multiply your foes too. So it hurts you badly in a different way, even as you do it. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't do it! It just means you're stuck with a very bad hand in a card game, and you've got to just play it the best you can.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's a sad thing that so many otherwise good Muslims have to turn to terrorism, but that does not excuse them, IMO...and when we're finished defeating them (not by destroying the ideal, which can't happen), we can all dwell on how sad the human condition is.

Humbug how sad the human condition is. I'm trying to point out that use of the label terrorism is inaccurate and accomplishes nothing while actively working against our interests, the interests of peace and stability we strive for around the world. It hinders our country in this war and promotes injustice. I'll get more into how in my next paragraph.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's not meant to "achieve" anything, as in somehow cripple them. It is a term to identify the KIND OF enemy we have. It's really pretty simple.

Well, it is making our enemies less easy to deal with by closing down options for us unnecessarily, it fails to take into account the numbers of our enemies and the fact that they're spread out around the world, and that thus policies regarding "terrorists" can't apply here, and it also allows other governments to basically call their enemies evil in some politically justified way, and thus get away with unfair policies. If the term's only merit is an incorrect identification of those we're fighting (incorrect because of their organization and ideology), and its negative points are the forementioned, the costs definitely outweigh the nonexistent gains, and we should drop the term or change it.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That's because you've compromised the "fight" option.

Don't put arguments in my mouth, please. I have not dropped the "fight" option. It's you who have dropped any "peace" option.

I think our country should fight as long as necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless, perhaps, the whole country becomes utterly riven with civil war and all chance of a peaceful solution is completely gone. I think we owe it to the Iraqi people to do our utmost to bring them peace.

I think attacking Iran may become the only option we have regarding them.

I have not dropped the "fight" option. But I think that the term "terrorist" incorrectly identifies our foes and has many other negative aspects. One of which is altogether dropping the "peace" option. We shouldn't limit ourselves unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Thats why there's also the title Islamo-Fascism. I don't know the exact definition of Fascism, but it gives some association with Hitler, and since these wars are very ideological, as Hitler was, the term fits well enough.

It sounds to me like just another way of blacklisting our enemies, and thus tying our own hands pointlessly.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I really don't care how specific or non-specific the term terrorist is. Wars weren't won by terminology.

So why don't we drop it, if it's non-specific and has many negative points? Since this is an altogether new kind of enemy in the way they fight and what their composition, organization and ideology, and we have never confronted "terrorists" of this kind before, don't you think we should just scrap the useless term and find something more suited to this new kind of foe?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Besides, I think it's pretty obvious to everyone, even if they do still say 'terrorist', that the problem is widespread.

It's definitely obvious to me. Unfortunately, that isn't obvious to most liberals I've met, and I think that that's a big weakness in their outlook.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There have been plenty of truces alright. But it really doesn't matter if the people still hate each other. Negotiations can be really fancy and official.

I know that they wouldn't always work. And not all groups can be negotiated with. But don't you think it's not a good idea to just tie our own hands as regards negotiation completely?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So you agree that some negotiations have to be a little more forceful

Yes.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But here's the quagmire we face with negotiations with terrorist groups, or whatever you want to tag them: if we go, it's because we don't expect them to do anymore harm. So if we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, will Al-Qaeda suddenly bloom into a hippy caravan? I doubt it. And I also doubt that they will stop their reacreative activities. So we DON'T WANT Al-Qaeda to exist.

I agree with you that we shouldn't pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan right now, and I have not been arguing for that. Critics of the Iraq War also don't seem to have any workable strategy, which, as President Bush has been saying, means just criticizing what currently is being attempted is inappropriate.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So if we did accept the overtures from Al-Qaeda, we might just kill them and backstab.
We're actually being pretty honest by refusing them.

It's not just about Al'Qaeda. Any group that uses terrorist techniques is going to be blacklisted, under the current definition. Maybe Al'Qaeda is too treacherous to deal with at all. That's for the experts to say. But I don't think we should just blacklist any group we call terrorists, and reject all potential diplomatic solutions.

Hezbollah held to the ceasefire with Israel, even though Israel violated it by launching a commando raid into Lebanon. Hamas and the other Palestinian groups did hold to Abbas' ceasefire for a long time, and I think it's confused how it ended. Each side blamed the other, of course.

But I don't think we should close all diplomatic options with all enemy groups we label as terrorists. That is highly unsound.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I certainly don't take it lightly that we did those things Tel, putting Saddam in power.

We didn't put him in power. We did support him, though, against the Iranians. And the Iranians were also our enemies. An enemy of an enemy is a friend.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But we don't have to slink and slop and kiss anyone's butt because of it. Bush was not responsible for Saddam Hussein's wickedness, the Americans alive today are not responsible for what he did.
It's a horrid part of our history in the middle-east, but I would hesitate to say that Saddam killed 3 million of his own people because we made him do it. Are we responsible, yes. We can't shrug all the blame off.
But it does not mean that are an evil or wicked nation.

I think we are to blame still for what we did in the Iran-Iraq War, because I think that we supported both sides of the conflict. And that act does mean our nation is to blame for recent (1980s) evil acts on a large scale. As you say, we can't just shrug that off, and that is the reason for a lot of the hatred against us. But I agree that that doesn't mean we're all evil, or that the present Administration is. It means our country as a whole, though, is guilty of a big crime.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We're exporting violence to Somalia?

Definitely agree with you here. The US is only indirectly involved in Somalia, and that's largely just by backing the warlords who are fighting Al'Qaeda and the Islamists that harbor them. That is certainly not a crime.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Did I say you should? I'm just trying to blur further the "us against them" perspective. Even some Revolutionaries committed terrorism. Should our cause, then, have been blacklisted as a terrorist organization?

Perhaps so. If it was independent militias who did those things, and they had not order to do them, I would have had no problem with identifying them like that.

I don't think all of them will necessarily keep kidnapping if we have a negotiation policy and use it intelligently. But they will if we don't. That's why non-negotiation is pointless.

You can't ever tell, but SOMETHING is always worth a try I suppose.

I've heard the Israelis say that Hezbollah was doing that, but I have some trouble believing it. It's inconsistent with Hezbollah's actions in the field.

Lief, no it isn't. It's EXACTLY how they fight. In Iraq: they blow people up and themselves. Except maybe Hezbollah fighters don't take enough hashish to want to blow themselves up.

I have not heard any evidence against that story.

I heard that rather than just hiding and evading Israel, many times, their fighters actually came out to attack Israeli troop lines. Also, you're right that this would be inconsistent with going out to defuse those cluster bombs. On the other hand, killing civilians just vengefully would not be inconsistent with Israel's record. Israel is known to have dropped a million cluster bombs all over the countryside, which are still killing civilians as we speak. Those bombs would have had no effect at taking out military targets, if Hezbollah fighters hadn't intentionally gotten in their way to defuse them. So intentionally killing civilians does look like it was Israel's regular policy, while luring Israeli fighters into civilian compounds doesn't make sense, considering Hezbollah's record.

Let's also consider the COMPLETELY IGNORED rockets that Hezbollah fired into Israeli civilian areas where few or no Israeli troops were posted.
Yeah maybe their rockets didn't kill half as many as Israel did, but you already see my point.

So I hope you can see why I have some trouble believing those Israeli accounts. They don't match either Israel's record in that war or Hezbollah's.

Even if they are true, though, I hope that I have made my point that certainly not all of those we classify as "terrorists," and hence as evil, are actually evil.

Well I wasn't thinking a He-Man villain or anything...

Another problem with the term is that now, governments can declare whatever dissidents they're fighting to be "terrorists," and so virtually any insurgent group comes under that name. It's a way in modern times of just painting oneself as the good guy and the enemy as evil, which all governments are eager to do, as it makes it more likely they'll get aid in their endeavors from the US or other countries, and it also may potentially justify brutal tactics against the opposition. I think that Israel has made ample use of this.

It probably isn't just the Republican Party. I bet that Democratic Party leaders will do the same.

Good for them.

I'm not saying we're doing wrong in fighting to defend our country. I have not said we should pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan either. Neither am I saying that combat is altogether not a solution. I think that it may well be a better alternative to letting WMDs be produced in Iraq or Iran. But hit them militarily, and you'll multiply your foes too. So it hurts you badly in a different way, even as you do it. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't do it! It just means you're stuck with a very bad hand in a card game, and you've got to just play it the best you can.

Well we still agree a lot then.

Humbug how sad the human condition is. I'm trying to point out that use of the label terrorism is inaccurate and accomplishes nothing while actively working against our interests, the interests of peace and stability we strive for around the world. It hinders our country in this war and promotes injustice. I'll get more into how in my next paragraph.

I'm not actually sure we've used "terrorist" for the problem makers in Iraq. We've been using "insurgents" for the most part...

Well, it is making our enemies less easy to deal with by closing down options for us unnecessarily, it fails to take into account the numbers of our enemies and the fact that they're spread out around the world, and that thus policies regarding "terrorists" can't apply here, and it also allows other governments to basically call their enemies evil in some politically justified way, and thus get away with unfair policies. If the term's only merit is an incorrect identification of those we're fighting (incorrect because of their organization and ideology), and its negative points are the forementioned, the costs definitely outweigh the nonexistent gains, and we should drop the term or change it.

How? Why?
Do our enemies really care whether it's the label we're using on them? I doubt it. Is it making us look at things in the wrong perspective? I think MOST people know the problems Lief, the intricate problems of this war.
The only people who really care about the term's use is the media, and it's not like THEY ever use it.

Don't put arguments in my mouth, please. I have not dropped the "fight" option. It's you who have dropped any "peace" option.

Lief, you said you didn't see any good option in our war right now, and the obvious option is to fight.
I haven't dropped the peace option, the peace option just drops when it's not available.

I think our country should fight as long as necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless, perhaps, the whole country becomes utterly riven with civil war and all chance of a peaceful solution is completely gone. I think we owe it to the Iraqi people to do our utmost to bring them peace.

Baghdad is no joke, but if 90% of the violence is contained to Baghdad and a thirty mile vicinity, I'm not quite so sure things are as hopeless as they seem.
Just saying it's in Baghdad doesn't get us out of the rut by any means, but it does at least clear up the perception that all of Iraq is rampant with violence and in flames.
We can still hack this out.

I think attacking Iran may become the only option we have regarding them.

It very well might be. But hopefully it won't, it will set off a pretty bad string of reactions. In all likelyhood, this'll end up being WWIII.

I have not dropped the "fight" option. But I think that the term "terrorist" incorrectly identifies our foes and has many other negative aspects. One of which is altogether dropping the "peace" option. We shouldn't limit ourselves unnecessarily.

I disagree with you that the term is that negative for us.

It sounds to me like just another way of blacklisting our enemies, and thus tying our own hands pointlessly.

Lief, this is ridiculous. If they are our enemies, they're ALREADY blacklisted!

So why don't we drop it, if it's non-specific and has many negative points? Since this is an altogether new kind of enemy in the way they fight and what their composition, organization and ideology, and we have never confronted "terrorists" of this kind before, don't you think we should just scrap the useless term and find something more suited to this new kind of foe?

We already have. There are TONS of terms already.

It's definitely obvious to me. Unfortunately, that isn't obvious to most liberals I've met, and I think that that's a big weakness in their outlook.

I know that they wouldn't always work. And not all groups can be negotiated with. But don't you think it's not a good idea to just tie our own hands as regards negotiation completely?

IF they can be negotiated with on reasonable terms, with reasonable outcomes in mind, most of which ideas will probably have to be ours.
I'm not against negotiation. I'm against pretending that negotiations go well when they don't, and leaving the problem only temporarily frozen. It's pretty warm over there in the Middle-East, stuff doesn't stay frozen for long.

I agree with you that we shouldn't pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan right now, and I have not been arguing for that. Critics of the Iraq War also don't seem to have any workable strategy, which, as President Bush has been saying, means just criticizing what currently is being attempted is inappropriate.

It's not just about Al'Qaeda. Any group that uses terrorist techniques is going to be blacklisted, under the current definition. Maybe Al'Qaeda is too treacherous to deal with at all. That's for the experts to say. But I don't think we should just blacklist any group we call terrorists, and reject all potential diplomatic solutions.

Yes, not every group is Al Qaeda, but you get my point...that at a certain level, we don't even want to negotiate simply because the group may be so rotten that it doesn't work to anyone's advantage to negotiate except theirs.

Hezbollah held to the ceasefire with Israel, even though Israel violated it by launching a commando raid into Lebanon. Hamas and the other Palestinian groups did hold to Abbas' ceasefire for a long time, and I think it's confused how it ended. Each side blamed the other, of course.

Thats the thing though, it's always going to be like that unless something definite happens. There have been plenty of cease-fires, half truces, truces divided by three, truces and cheese...

And I'm glad for the few lives that were saved by those, but did it? Or did it just momentarily the freeze the bullets going into the person's head?

But I don't think we should close all diplomatic options with all enemy groups we label as terrorists. That is highly unsound.

That would only include Hamas at best.


BTW, I still read and respect your stuff, despite our present squabble

[hectorberlioz]

...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You can't ever tell, but SOMETHING is always worth a try I suppose.

Agreed. And that's one reason I think the word "terrorist" works against our interests.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Lief, no it isn't. It's EXACTLY how they fight. In Iraq: they blow people up and themselves. Except maybe Hezbollah fighters don't take enough hashish to want to blow themselves up.

That wasn't Hezbollah, but Al'Qaeda, foreign jihadis and Iraqi insurgents. The Shi'ite militias and death squads we're fighting in Iraq were supported by Iran, just as Hezbollah was, but that's the only connection. They're two different groups.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I have not heard any evidence against that story.

Neither have I. It's just inconsistent for Hezbollah to do that, but very consistent for Israel to just bomb civilians willingly. It's also Israeli sources we have primarily, that say that that's the case. I doubt Hezbollah would have as much support in Lebanon as it does now, if it was using the civilians as human shields. So for a lot of reasons, I tend to doubt its accuracy.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Let's also consider the COMPLETELY IGNORED rockets that Hezbollah fired into Israeli civilian areas where few or no Israeli troops were posted.
Yeah maybe their rockets didn't kill half as many as Israel did, but you already see my point.

Being willing to kill enemy civilians in a war is rather different from being willing to kill your own civilians. Do you think the WW2 US bombers who firebombed Japan would have been willing to hide behind civilian shields in their own country? Not likely. You can justify to yourself hitting enemy civilians, but hitting your own civilians is a rather different matter.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well I wasn't thinking a He-Man villain or anything...

But that's what the term "terrorist" implies, the way it's used nowadays. And that's the way we respond to people who we classify as terrorist. Once we do that, any negotiations are off and it's kill or be killed.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well we still agree a lot then.

I think so too.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'm not actually sure we've used "terrorist" for the problem makers in Iraq. We've been using "insurgents" for the most part...

That's what I've heard too, and I think that's a much better term to use, to describe them. It leaves our options more open in Iraq.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

How? Why?
Do our enemies really care whether it's the label we're using on them? I doubt it. Is it making us look at things in the wrong perspective? I think MOST people know the problems Lief, the intricate problems of this war.
The only people who really care about the term's use is the media, and it's not like THEY ever use it.

Well, I disagree. I think that when most people use the term "terrorist," they just think of sick, evil people who murder civilians. That's the stereotype.

I agree that our enemies probably don't care that we label them terrorists. Bin Laden said he was proud to be called a terrorist by the US. But I'm not saying we should stop using the term because our enemies might be annoyed . I'm saying we should stop using it because it unnecessarily limits US options, improperly describes the new enemy we face (which makes it just an inaccurate term that also creates an inaccurate stereotype), and enables various governments to get away with a lot of unfairness and cruelty because their enemies are evil terrorists.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Lief, you said you didn't see any good option in our war right now, and the obvious option is to fight.
I haven't dropped the peace option, the peace option just drops when it's not available.

And it's never available when we label a group "terrorist." We should have experts consider potential peace options with different terrorist groups and see whether peaceful resolutions can be made. If the group is too potentially treacherous or a peaceful solution is either impossible, very risky or ill advised, the experts should decide against making peace. But we should have the option of making peace with different terrorist groups if we can. Right now, we have pointlessly tied our own hands. If a good opportunity for peace with a terrorist group comes up, we won't take it, because the group is a terrorist group and we don't negotiate with terrorists.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Baghdad is no joke, but if 90% of the violence is contained to Baghdad and a thirty mile vicinity, I'm not quite so sure things are as hopeless as they seem.

I think it was 80%.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Just saying it's in Baghdad doesn't get us out of the rut by any means, but it does at least clear up the perception that all of Iraq is rampant with violence and in flames.
We can still hack this out.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It very well might be. But hopefully it won't, it will set off a pretty bad string of reactions.

I know. I'm very weary of this war in Iraq, but I don't think there are any better options than continuing to fight it.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

In all likelyhood, this'll end up being WWIII.

I think so. Considering the speed Islamic extremism is spreading and considering the availability of WMDs nowadays, I think so. I really hope that we don't lose many of our democratic liberties in the course of the fight. I can accept losing some, perhaps, in the interests of survival, if that becomes necessary. But the liberty we experience is beautiful and I don't want to lose it.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I disagree with you that the term is that negative.

Humph. Well, we just disagree then .

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Lief, this is ridiculous. If they are our enemies, they're ALREADY blacklisted!

You can be at war with a state and then make a peace treaty with them to end the fighting. Our laws regarding no negotiation with terrorists mean that we can't do that with them. Also, labeling terrorists means we're saying that they're just all evil. That doesn't have to be true when we're fighting a state.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We already have. There are TONS of terms already.

I haven't heard any that I think suits them, yet. But maybe I haven't heard all the ones you have. "Terrorist," at any rate, should be scrapped. At least as regards Islamic extremism. Terrorism engaged in for other causes is another matter- I think the old definition, though faulty, and the non-negotiation policy might work still with other and less widespread terrorist groups.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

IF they can be negotiated with on reasonable terms, with reasonable outcomes in mind, most of which ideas will probably have to be ours.
I'm not against negotiation. I'm against pretending that negotiations go well when they don't, and leaving the problem only temporarily frozen. It's pretty warm over there in the Middle-East, stuff doesn't stay frozen for long.

Negotiation is one possible avenue by which conflicts might be ended with at least some of the Islamic groups that threaten us. I'm just saying we shouldn't tie our hands, and the term "terrorist" does that.

I think you should really agree with me on this- you already seem to agree with me on this. When you say you aren't against negotiation, you admit that you feel the term "terrorist" is faulty in this, because it prohibits all and any negotiation with terrorist groups.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yes, not every group is Al Qaeda, but you get my point...that at a certain level, we don't even want to negotiate simply because the group may be so rotten that it doesn't work to anyone's advantage except theirs.

Yes, I understand that some groups can get that way and in some cases, negotiation will be impossible. But it might sometimes work, so the term "terrorist" should not remain use, as a description for our enemies.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Thats the thing though, it's always going to be like that unless something definite happens. There have been plenty of cease-fires, half truces, truces divided by three, truces and cheese...

Well good! Those are opportunities for a more lasting peaceful solution. The vast majority of them might go nowhere, but sometime, one or more of them might.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And I'm glad for the few lives that were saved by those, but did it? Or did it just momentarily the freeze the bullets going into the person's head?

They are opportunities for a more lasting peace, whether they save lives or not, and even if the chances of it turning into a more lasting peace is 1% or .01%. That's better than 0. That makes those truces worthwhile, even if they break down afterward.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That would only include Hamas at best.

I'd leave which groups the government thinks it might be profitable to open contact with to the experts.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

BTW, I still read and respect your stuff, despite our present squabble

And I yours .

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Agreed. And that's one reason I think the word "terrorist" works against our interests.

That wasn't Hezbollah, but Al'Qaeda, foreign jihadis and Iraqi insurgents. The Shi'ite militias and death squads we're fighting in Iraq were supported by Iran, just as Hezbollah was, but that's the only connection. They're two different groups.

Yes, they are different groups, but their tactics may have some things in common.

Neither have I. It's just inconsistent for Hezbollah to do that, but very consistent for Israel to just bomb civilians willingly. It's also Israeli sources we have primarily, that say that that's the case. I doubt Hezbollah would have as much support in Lebanon as it does now, if it was using the civilians as human shields. So for a lot of reasons, I tend to doubt its accuracy.

That's the thing with rogue groups, they're consistently unpredictable.

Being willing to kill enemy civilians in a war is rather different from being willing to kill your own civilians. Do you think the WW2 US bombers who firebombed Japan would have been willing to hide behind civilian shields in their own country? Not likely. You can justify to yourself hitting enemy civilians, but hitting your own civilians is a rather different matter.

Different world. Way different war, different cultures fighting.

But that's what the term "terrorist" implies, the way it's used nowadays. And that's the way we respond to people who we classify as terrorist. Once we do that, any negotiations are off and it's kill or be killed.

No! It isn't that, and you don't believe that either, because if you did, you wouldn't even use "islamic extremists". You think that somehow escapes the allegations you've leveled against "terrorist"?

That's what I've heard too, and I think that's a much better term to use, to describe them. It leaves our options more open in Iraq.

Well, I don't know what they're referred to as in Iraq, but thats what we've been calling them here.

Well, I disagree. I think that when most people use the term "terrorist," they just think of sick, evil people who murder civilians. That's the stereotype.

You're right, not all terrorists murder.

I agree that our enemies probably don't care that we label them terrorists. Bin Laden said he was proud to be called a terrorist by the US. But I'm not saying we should stop using the term because our enemies might be annoyed . I'm saying we should stop using it because it unnecessarily limits US options, improperly describes the new enemy we face (which makes it just an inaccurate term that also creates an inaccurate stereotype), and enables various governments to get away with a lot of unfairness and cruelty because their enemies are evil terrorists.

And I just don't think it works that way. I cannot see that it somehow ties our hands down or whatever.
As for it being an excuse for other bad govt's to use...yes, maybe, but I think we have a pretty good idea who those countries are, and they're already in the mix.

And it's never available when we label a group "terrorist."

We don't label without good reasons. We've contained our expectations of radical Islam to certain terrorists groups, and imitators or whatever in London.

We should have experts consider potential peace options with different terrorist groups and see whether peaceful resolutions can be made. If the group is too potentially treacherous or a peaceful solution is either impossible, very risky or ill advised, the experts should decide against making peace. But we should have the option of making peace with different terrorist groups if we can. Right now, we have pointlessly tied our own hands.

Where in particular, in your opinion?

If a good opportunity for peace with a terrorist group comes up, we won't take it, because the group is a terrorist group and we don't negotiate with terrorists.

Grrr! That has been exactly my point.

I think it was 80%.

You're right.

I think so. Considering the speed Islamic extremism is spreading and considering the availability of WMDs nowadays, I think so. I really hope that we don't lose many of our democratic liberties in the course of the fight. I can accept losing some, perhaps, in the interests of survival, if that becomes necessary. But the liberty we experience is beautiful and I don't want to lose it.

You know what I hate? I hate that we could blow all these problem countries away, and they know it. But they know we won't because we wouldn't kill that many innocent people to be rid of them. They step all over us, and I'm sick and tired of it.

You can be at war with a state and then make a peace treaty with them to end the fighting. Our laws regarding no negotiation with terrorists mean that we can't do that with them. Also, labeling terrorists means we're saying that they're just all evil.

Not necessarily Lief, but it certainly means me mean to stop them.

That doesn't have to be true when we're fighting a state.

I haven't heard any that I think suits them, yet. But maybe I haven't heard all the ones you have. "Terrorist," at any rate, should be scrapped. At least as regards Islamic extremism. Terrorism engaged in for other causes is another matter- I think the old definition, though faulty, and the non-negotiation policy might work still with other and less widespread terrorist groups.

Negotiation is one possible avenue by which conflicts might be ended with at least some of the Islamic groups that threaten us. I'm just saying we shouldn't tie our hands, and the term "terrorist" does that.

I think you should really agree with me on this- you already seem to agree with me on this. When you say you aren't against negotiation, you admit that you feel the term "terrorist" is faulty in this, because it prohibits all and any negotiation with terrorist groups.

So it IS about offending them...

Not necessarily true, we could negotiate with them while they are still "terrorists". It's not hard at all. Their label by itself shouldn't at all be an invisible wall.

Yes, I understand that some groups can get that way and in some cases, negotiation will be impossible. But it might sometimes work, so the term "terrorist" should not remain use, as a description for our enemies.

I'm saying that those groups, if we don't negotiate with them and let them do their stuff, can only disband and never regroup, the other option is to be annihilated by us. It isn't to anyone's advantage that Hezbollah or Hamas remain an anti-Israel force. If Abbas is a sincere guy (and he may not be), the Palestinians could already have voted for a person (and did in past years) who can get along with Israel at some level. Why Hamas as it is, that is, mainly a fighting machine? (or Fatah).

Well good! Those are opportunities for a more lasting peaceful solution. The vast majority of them might go nowhere, but sometime, one or more of them might.

They are opportunities for a more lasting peace, whether they save lives or not, and even if the chances of it turning into a more lasting peace is 1% or .01%. That's better than 0. That makes those truces worthwhile, even if they break down afterward.

I'd leave which groups the government thinks it might be profitable to open contact with to the experts.

And I yours .

But ONLY truces? it's one thing for the leaders of two countries to wave white flags in eachothers faces, but I'm afraid this goes deep into the cultures of both peoples, to raise their children to hate the other side.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yes, they are different groups, but their tactics may have some things in common.

I tend to think that they don't have a whole lot in common. Before this recent war with Israel, Hezbollah didn't attack civilians, but only government or military targets of nations it considered itself to be at war with. Hezbollah condemned Al'Qaeda's 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US because those attacks, in Hezbollah's words, killed the innocent.

Hezbollah continued to not attack civilians until Israel began bombing Lebanese civilians in the war between Israel and Lebanon, in 2006. Then, in response to civilian deaths on their side, they changed policy and began to bomb Haifa.

Hezbollah tends to be squeamish about the morality of suicide bombings and doesn't like using them itself, though it does have warm relations with Hamas.

I tend to think that Hezbollah is a much less sick group than Al'Qaeda. I tend to not think they're really sick, or extremely evil. I think that they do some evil things sometimes, such as the torture of a couple US officials a long time ago, but the US has done the same on occasion. No one's hands are completely clean.

Hezbollah's conduct in the 2006 war is very understandable, and the methods their organization has generally used haven't usually been all that horrible. And nations or different powers have very frequently killed one another's civilians in war, especially when they have been equipped with insufficient technology, as Hezbollah is. Remember the Allied bombings of Japan and Germany during WW2, and the Sherman March that ended the Civil War.

The kinds of things Hezbollah has done seem to me to be on a different ethical level from Al'Qaeda, which uses civilian human shields all the time, has no compunction about using civilians as targets or getting Muslims to kill Muslims, and just will do anything to achieve its ends. Al'Qaeda plays a lot dirtier than Hezbollah does.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That's the thing with rogue groups, they're consistently unpredictable.

I don't think that that's true for all groups.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Different world. Way different war, different cultures fighting.

I don't think that that way of fighting is cultural. It's born from lack of better ways of fighting, more than anything else. But I don't think that all Muslim terrorists fight in that way.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No! It isn't that, and you don't believe that either, because if you did, you wouldn't even use "islamic extremists". You think that somehow escapes the allegations you've leveled against "terrorist"?

I think that that is how "terrorist" is used. "Extremist" doesn't carry with it a policy of "kill or be killed." You can call someone an extremist and that doesn't have to mean there's nothing left between him and you but a life and death struggle.

But I think you and I just disagree on the connotations of the word "terrorist." I think it means that the person described is inhuman and evil. But we can at least agree on the political policy that goes with the word. There is no negotiation with terrorists. So for that reason alone, if not the other as well, you should agree with me that just rejecting out of hand any possibility of negotiation with Islamic extremists is a blind approach that needlessly dismisses options.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, I don't know what they're referred to as in Iraq, but thats what we've been calling them here.

I've heard them generally referred to as insurgents, by Administration officials.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And I just don't think it works that way. I cannot see that it somehow ties our hands down or whatever.

Well, no negotiation with terrorists. That ties our hands down unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

As for it being an excuse for other bad govt's to use...yes, maybe, but I think we have a pretty good idea who those countries are, and they're already in the mix.

Every government uses that term nowadays. It's everywhere, honestly. I can't think of any group of insurgents a government is fighting, where the government doesn't call them terrorists. It means "they're the lawless, evil bad guys, so don't object to what we're about to do . . ." Israel uses this term freely and uses it as an excuse to just clobber their enemies and the civilians in the countries they fight. The Palestinian territories are kept in economic bondage because of Israeli oppressive tactics, keeping down terrorism. When the Israelis attacked Gaza Strip in Operation Rainbow, they pulverized banks, schools, stores, institutions that cost millions of US and UN dollars to build, calling it "terrorist infrastructure."

Sri Lanka called the Tamil Tigers it's fighting "terrorists" and then engaged in brutal chemical warfare that essentially tortured people to death.

Russia continually becomes responsible for atrocities against the "terrorists" in Chechnya.

I don't think that the US intends violations of human rights when it uses that word, but that word has incidentally become free license for many countries to do whatever you want.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We don't label without good reasons. We've contained our expectations of radical Islam to certain terrorists groups, and imitators or whatever in London.

But the label still limits our options unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Where in particular, in your opinion?

Who cares? It's the experts who are in the best position to say, not me, and I'd leave it in their hands. If they think no group currently labeled "terrorist" can have peace made with it, fine! That's their expert opinion, and I'll accept that. But right now, negotiations aren't being engaged in because it's our experts' opinion that negotiations with these groups are impossible, but rather they aren't being engaged in because we don't negotiate with terrorists. That's the only current reason.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Grrr! That has been exactly my point.

Huh?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You know what I hate? I hate that we could blow all these problem countries away, and they know it. But they know we won't because we wouldn't kill that many innocent people to be rid of them. They step all over us, and I'm sick and tired of it.

True. Though the nuclear radiation is another reason why we wouldn't.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So it IS about offending them...

Not necessarily true, we could negotiate with them while they are still "terrorists". It's not hard at all. Their label by itself shouldn't at all be an invisible wall.

No, the US does not negotiate with terrorists. That's policy. It's because we have always felt that if we negotiate with them, it would encourage others to do more of the same actions, which obviously is an old-fashioned philosophy as regards Islamic extremists.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'm saying that those groups, if we don't negotiate with them and let them do their stuff, can only disband and never regroup, the other option is to be annihilated by us. It isn't to anyone's advantage that Hezbollah or Hamas remain an anti-Israel force. If Abbas is a sincere guy (and he may not be), the Palestinians could already have voted for a person (and did in past years) who can get along with Israel at some level. Why Hamas as it is, that is, mainly a fighting machine? (or Fatah).

Despair. They feel that Israel never intends to give them anything, but just rather to keep them suppressed as one big prison camp forever. Many have given up on peace options because they feel Israel is just going to keep smashing them down forever. They also blame the failure of previous peace endeavors on Israel.

I really, really, really like Mahmoud Abbas, though. I am positive that he is sincere and admire and respect him greatly for the difficult choices he has made and the strength he has shown in a nightmare position, in the cause of bringing peace.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But ONLY truces? it's one thing for the leaders of two countries to wave white flags in eachothers faces, but I'm afraid this goes deep into the cultures of both peoples, to raise their children to hate the other side.

Yes, and that'll continue. That was the case between Britain and France for years. A truce is the way to start fixing that, though. Peace can cure it, even if it may take generations.

[captain carrot]

anyone for a good old fashioned 'short post'?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by captain carrot

anyone for a good old fashioned 'short post'?

Or a video or two?

[Lief Erikson]

Here's an interesting article from CNN. This is not a response to any post here and no one needs to read it, but if you're interested, here goes.

New evidence has been uncovered, further implicating Iran in the violence in Iraq.

Originally Posted by CNN

U.S. defense officials say the United States has gathered substantial information and equipment pointing to the involvement of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Al Quds force among Shiite militias.

The militias have been attacking Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops, the officials said.

The evidence was gathered in raids that took place in Irbil earlier this month, and in Baghdad in December.

The United States is still holding 13 people seized in the raids. Others have been returned to Iran. At least two are said by U.S. officials to be senior members of Al Quds -- although it is not clear if those two are still in U.S. custody.

Some of the weapons and weapons components seized had Iranian manufacturing stamps, according to one official. The inventory included mortars, rockets, shoulder-launched weapons and rifles.

Officials are deeply concerned about finding Iranian-manufactured components for advanced improvised explosive devices. The components appear to be used in the armor-penetrating devices that have been used for months now against U.S. troops, the officials said.

Also found in these raids were shipping documents, including addresses inside Iraq, bills of lading, trip logs, videos and maps. One map showed Baghdad neighborhoods and other areas in Iraq marked off by religious affiliation.

[The Gaffer]

Interesting discussion Lief. Gaun yersel big man.

I don't find it surprising that Shia militias (militiae?) are getting arms from Iran. Let's see, if China invaded Canada, and installed a Maoist government, don't you think the Free Canuck resistance might get the odd peashooter from the US?

In that context it's a pretty unimpressive haul, in fact. Maybe they can file the receipts next to the ones they've got from Saddam in the 80s.

However, given your views on "terrorists" and enemies, doesn't that mean we should be talking to Iran as a matter of priority?

[captain carrot]

Lief is a tall chap i beleive.

Wotcha El Tel, how's things?

Mornin' Eddy - your taters' good?

...........................................